Why an AI training 'pause' is not a stable equilibrium, per researchers on X
lu_sichu · x · 2026-09-04
On X, lusichu argues that many people backing a frontier AI training pause are simply seeking to put their fears out of mind — understandable but unsustainable. A pause is not a stable equilibrium: someone will eventually defect. His optimism: a world capable of enforcing a pause is a world where geopolitical race dynamics are mild, and humans are excellent at solving technical problems; the real risk is our failure to cooperate.
Related event: AI Debate: Why a Training Pause Can't Be a Stable Equilibrium(3 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Aleksa Gordić: we're systematically too pessimistic about AI progress — gordic_aleksa · 2026-09-04
- Alignment researcher: Astra's near-zero misalignment looks like whack-a-mole, not real fix — sjgadler · 2026-09-04
- Yacine: Chain-of-Thought Is Good for Monitorability but Not Cheap, and I Won't Pay for It — yacineMTB · 2026-09-04
- Neel Nanda: anthropomorphic abstractions are a principled lens for interpreting AI agents — NeelNanda5 · 2026-09-04
- Jensen Huang at G20: AI can lift a $100T industry, adding $20-50T in global economic value — rohanpaul_ai · 2026-09-04
- Sam Altman: three months of startup work now fits in 17 minutes with Codex — r0ck3t23 · 2026-09-04